<provenance document="summary" place="brantwood">
<head2>Provenance during the Brantwood Years, ca. 1870s-1930
<head3>Introduction
	Ruskin purchased <Brantwood> in 1871; and he began living there in summer 1873, following his mother's death in December 1871 and his removal from Denmark Hill in spring 1872 (Hilton, John Ruskin: The Later Years, 212, 223, 255). 

During these years and after Ruskin's death, when the <Severn family> continued to occupy the house, the provenance of the early manuscripts branched in several complex directions. The first part of the period, from the 1870s through 1889, witnessed a particularly experimental period in Ruskin's life as an author and also a pervasively autobiographical one. In connection with this autobiographical writing, Ruskin consulted the early manuscripts, especially for <Fors Clavigera> and <Praeterita>, and questions of provenance--specifically where and how the manuscripts were kept at Brantwood, why and to whom he gave away some of the manuscripts during this period--lead to other inquiries, such as Ruskin's and his editors' <construction of his childhood> and the <editing history> of the early manuscripts. Separately from these other topics, however, the physical provenance of the manuscripts requires treatment in two forms: as a unified summary, which is attempted here, and as particular accounts attached to specific manuscripts.
	Provenance becomes interestingly complicated during the Brantwood period. During these years, for whatever reason, Ruskin grew inclined to make <gifts> of some early manuscripts and drawings. Some of the recipients took steps to <preserve> the manuscripts with bindings; and if the recipient was a member of the <Brantwood circle>, Ruskin himself may have had a hand in the arrangement of the manuscripts in question for binding, although his involvement is never? definitely documented. Another important development affecting provenance is the collecting, collating, and study of the manuscripts for the <Poems> of 1891 and for the <Library Edition>. It was especially, but not exclusively during the latter editorial venture, which occurred after Ruskin's death, that the <bindings> and <slipcovers> presently associated with the early manuscripts were manufactured. Finally, for many of the early as well as later manuscripts, the Brantwood period of provenance ended with the <sales> of the 1930s, which dispersed the manuscripts throughout the world. For some early manuscripts, however, the Brantwood period following the preparation of the <Library Edition> lasted for a less determinate period, ending in <unauthorized> <sale> sometime prior to the <authorized> <sales> of the 1930s.
	<Sales>, authorized and unauthorized, were made to <collectors> and their <agents> who were already interested in Ruskin, but important questions arise regarding who among them were interested in the early Ruskin and why. No one was a collector exclusively of the early manuscripts, although some collectors such as <Goodspeed> and <Sharp> clearly thought of developing a significant portion of their collections around the earlier work. Even before Ruskin's death, the market for his early work had been stirred by collectors' interest in his early publications (but not in his manuscripts, which did not become legitimately available until later). This market interest in Ruskin's early and--by the later decades of the century--rare publications was, like the value of early rarities by other important Victorian writers, partly stimulated by the activities of <forgers>, especially the actions and publications of <T. J. Wise>.
	Location also becomes a complex affair for some manuscripts during the Brantwood period, especially in the case of gifts. If the recipient was a member of the <Severn family>, the manuscript may or may not have been carried away from the house. If the recipient was a member of the wider <Brantwood circle>--for example, Alexander Wedderburn, who gained the important <letters to Ruskin's father>--the manuscript was taken to London, where it probably received its present binding. If the recipient was an outsider, Ruskin sent the manuscript to that person, away from the house--in some cases, as it proved, forever. But many of these gifts made their way back to the house during the editing of the <Library Edition>, and possibly they remained there until the sales of the 1930s, although this segment of provenance requires further research. 

<head3>Ruskin's Use and Treatment of the Early Manuscripts and Drawings
	While we know little about how Ruskin or his parents cared for the early manuscripts prior to his move to Brantwood, hard evidence of Ruskin's examination of and care for the physical manuscripts and drawings dates from the composition of the autobiography, Praeterita, which he began in January 1885. Marking notebooks and drawings with date and ....
	Relate to John James's use and treatment...

<provenance action="gift">
<head3>Ruskin's Gifts of Manuscripts and Drawings
	The first recorded (?? where?) gift of an early manuscript is associated with the death of Margaret Ruskin in 1871? At that time, and apparently as a memorial to her, Ruskin gave "The Puppet Show" (MS IB) to Crawley....

	What about Charles Eliot Norton? When did he get Wales/Spring letter?

	It was also during the composition of Praeterita that Ruskin began giving away early manuscripts and drawings . . . Mama Talbot. Attitude about rubbish?

	In Praeterita, Ruskin records his gift of the 1833-34 Continental tour poem (<MS IX>), of which, he says, “I leave the unfinished folly in Joanie’s care, that none but friends may see it” (Works, 35:81 [chapter 4, published September, 1885, but composed ...?]). In fact, Ruskin appears to have given Joan Severn the juvenile tour poems as a group. As of 1891, according to Collingwood in <Poems (1891)>, not only MS IX was “in the possession of Mrs. Arthur Severn” but also MSS VII ("Iteriad") and X (which included, originally, the diary of the 1830 Lakes tour and the poetic travelogue of the 1835 Continental tour [see descriptions of <MS X>, <MS XA>, and <MS XB>]) (Poems [1891], 1:265, 266, 267).
It may be noteworthy, too, that Ruskin gave the tour poems and sketchbook to maternal figures
	Both in Praeterita and in a private letter to Fanny Talbot, Ruskin dismissed the gifts scornfully as "rubbish" and "folly." One wonders if his tone was more reverential when making another important gift, his letters to his father, which went to Alexander Wedderburn. The reason for this bequest may be that Wedderburn was sympathetic to the early-century Ultra-Toryism that originated in Ruskin’s relation with his father and that Ruskin continued to uphold over the years in letters to the press, collected and edited by Wedderburn as Arrows of the Chase (0000). The letters were bound in 1889 (see <MS XI> <preservation>), which is also the year when Ruskin stopped writing Praeterita (along with all public writing), although he could have given the letters to Wedderburn earlier or even afterward. Wedderburn documented the gift by an ink notation on the front endpaper of the last volume (vol. 6, originally vol. 7): "The letters in this volume were given by M<sup>r</sup> Ruskin to A. Wedderburn, & arranged by him in this book, which was deposited at Brantwood, after M<sup>r</sup> Ruskin's death, by arrangement with M<sup>rs</sup> Severn. / A. Wedderburn / Oct. 1900." The frustrating ambiguity in the pronoun reference leaves it unclear whether Wedderburn or Ruskin himself "arranged" the letters. If the parallel passive verb construction is meant to indicate Ruskin both "giving" and "arranging in this book," then the date of binding (1889) reveals him carefully preserving his letters to his father in the final year of his working life--a significant valedictory gesture--and he could have made a gift of the letters to Wedderburn either before or after the binding. If Wedderburn himself did the "arranging," then presumably Ruskin gave the letters to his secretary in 1889 or before. 

	Another perplexing phrase in Wedderburn's ink notation is the reference only to the one volume, "in this book." If the notation literally refers to that volume alone, which contains letters of 1862-63, why would Ruskin have set aside specifically these letters for Wedderburn? However, Wedderburn did, in fact, possess all the bound volumes of letters (originally seven in number), as is indicated by other notations, in pencil on the front endpapers of each volume, "To be given to M<sup>rs</sup> Arthur Severn in event of my death / AW" (see <MS XI, Description>). It seems more than probable, therefore, that the ink notation is likewise meant to refer to all the volumes. The several ambiguities contained in that brief notation nonetheless show a surprising carelessness on the part of this barrister, who was generally so careful about the Ruskin manuscripts and copyrights. (Yet another ambiguity, which is treated in its chronological order under <preservation>, lies in the relation between the ink and pencil notations, a confusing if not contradictory testimony to how the manuscripts were regarded, in terms of ownership and care, in the course of editing the Library Edition.)

	Wedderburn also owned "a large folio scrap-book, wherein Ruskin's father, up to the date of his death, had pasted every review of his son's books, or other references to them, which he could find" (Ruskin, Works, 38:xviii). . . .

<action="preservation">
<head3>Preservation of the Manuscripts at Brantwood
	From MS I: The gummed strip used to mend this leaf—resembling the edge of a sheet of postage stamps—can be found put to a similar use in W. G. Collingwood’s proof sheets for Poems (1891) (RF MS 70), so evidently Collingwood had a hand in the preservation of the Red Books (albeit using less than archival methods). This makes sense in view of his preparing the first bibliography of these manuscripts, the “Preliminary Note on the Original MSS. of the Poems” (Poems [4o, 1891], 1:261–67; Poems [8o, 1891], 1:262–68).
	The preservation of the red books and other notebooks by constructing slipcases for them rather than by rebinding them suggests the influence of the new movement in bibliography of modern authors, headed by such figures important to Ruskin bibliography as Thomas J. Wise and H. Buxton Forman. Wise in particular was influential in encouraging collecting modern editions in their original state—preserving even the boards and paper wrappers that collectors earlier in the century would have scorned—and this technique presumably would have extended to manuscripts (Carter, Taste and Technique in Book-Collecting 28–29).
	At the time that they were sold in 1930-31 (see <sales>), most of the important early manuscripts were contained in bindings and slipcases. Although many of these casings fail to record when they were made or by whom, those that do carry dates point to 1889 and 1902 as important years for this activity, suggesting that preservation efforts clustered around preparations for two editorial projects--W. G. Collingwood's bibliographic analysis of the early manuscripts for <poems91> Poems (1891), and E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn's review and augmentation of Collingwood's scholarship in preparation for the first volumes of the <le> Library Edition (1903-12). Discussion of these editions belongs to the <editing history>, while what is known about the preservation efforts, which proceeded in tandem with the editing, is summarized here (with greater detail elaborated in the provenance and description essays attached to particular manuscripts).

	At the <1930 Sotheby's sale> of Ruskin's books and manuscripts, four lots consisted of early manuscripts that had been bound or slipcased either in 1889 or in 1902, all in matching blue-morocco-covered boards with gilt decoration and lettering on the spines: "Letters to His Father," 6 volumes (lot 110); "Early Poems and Juvenilia," 6 slipcases (lot 112); the Poetry of Architecture and Modern Painters I manuscripts, 2 volumes (lot 113); and the King of the Golden River manuscript, 1 volume (lot 114) (Sotheby & Co., Catalogue [1930], pp. 18, 20-21). Of these, the letters in lot 110 are stamped 1889 on the volumes' spines, identifying them as apparently the first manuscripts to receive this blue-morocco treatment. Among the other lots in the sale to feature the blue-morocco treatment, some cases are stamped 1902: the Modern Painters manuscript, and two of the six slipcases containing "Early Poems and Juvenilia." [King???] The remaining slipcases bear no dates at all. (For full descriptions of the lots, see the discussion of the <1930 Sotheby's sale>.)

	The choice of blue morocco is distinctive, most other Ruskin manuscripts being bound in red buckram. Perhaps blue morocco bore reference to the so-called "Ruskin calf"--that is, the "purple calf, with gilt edges, tooled after an ecclesiastical fashion," used for the <Works Series> (<Wise and Smart, comps., Bibliography,> 1:119). Whatever the intention behind the choice, it is striking that blue morocco was used exclusively, as far as I am aware, for this group primarily of early manuscripts, and that this treatment represents early, major efforts--perhaps the first two major efforts, in 1889 and 1902--to preserve manuscripts at Brantwood. The consistent choice of blue morocco may simply reflect a habit that was started in 1889, revived in 1902, and soon relinquished (some juvenilia was bound in red buckram like the majority of Ruskin manuscripts, possibly as early as 1903); nonetheless, it is worth inquiring what lay behind this apparently uniform (and somewhat elaborate) approach at the start.

	"Letters to His Father" has already been discussed as a <gift> to Alexander Wedderburn, who presumably was responsible for the 1889 blue-morocco binding, regardless of whether he or Ruskin "arranged" the letters. Since 1889 marked the end of Ruskin's public writing, the binding of the letters to his father in that year is a haunting gesture, probably associated with the "completion" of the autobiography, Praeterita, abandoned in the same year. Similarly, since beginning the autobiography four years earlier in 1885, Ruskin had been disposing of early manuscripts and drawings as <gifts> to Joan Severn and Fanny Talbot. Perhaps, the valedictory mood encouraged the expensive treatment given first to the letters and, years later, repeated for what had been gifts to Joan along with other juvenilia.

	Of the other early manuscripts besides the letters that were bound or cased in blue morocco, the only ones to carry dates, MSS V and VII, were made in 1902, as shown by their spines: "RUSKIN / MS. / POEMS / 1829–32 / 1902" (this is <MS V>); and "RUSKIN / MS. / ITERIAD / &c / 1902" (this is <MS VII>). Since, according to Collingwood, MSS VII, IX, and X were owned by Joan Severn, MS VII could not have been sent to a bindery in 1902 without her permission, and it seems reasonable (but not certain) that her MS IX would have been cased in blue morocco at the same time. Anomalously, MS X was bound in red buckram (see <MS X>). Precisely when this binding was made is unclear, except that it must have been after August 1901, when Joan Severn separated pages from the 1830 tour diary to present to the newly opened Coniston Ruskin Museum (Burd and Dearden, Tour to the Lakes, 3), and before 1903 when the binding history was summarized in volume 2 of the Library Edition (Works, 2:534)--in other words, about 1902, like the blue morocco cases.

	It makes sense that preservation was undertaken in 1902, since plans for editing the Library Edition were well underway. As explained in greater detail in the <editing history>, the Library Edition was to be unprecedented in its comprehensiveness, including not only every published work but also much previously unpublished writing, including collation of earlier published editions and rough draft. The aim of comprehensiveness was unusual at a time when many--including Charles Eliot Norton, one of Ruskin's <literary executors>--believed that an editor should pare away even formerly published work, much less air the unpublished, private, and unfinished (see, e.g., Millgate ???). The debate was particularly sensitive in Ruskin's case, of course, owing to what were viewed as embarrassments in the biographical record. The aim was motivated not only by editorial philosophy, however, but also by financial exigency of extending copyright. As James Dearden has explained, Wedderburn as a barrister realized that the executors could extend copyright only through inclusion of previously unpublished manuscript material--an extension that, by provisions of Ruskin's will, would especially profit Wedderburn as editor, <George Allen> as publisher, and Joan Severn as assenting executor (Dearden, "Library Edition of the Works of John Ruskin," 52-53; and see <Library Edition>). Legal urgency therefore combined with editorial philosophy to prod unprecedented bibliographic comprehensiveness and care in a short time, and in 1902 E. T. Cook was hired to assist Wedderburn.

	Speed yet comprehensiveness were tested in the first two volumes, which show the strain of an extensive compilation of texts along with an apparently careful bibliographic analysis that were nonetheless achieved by means of shortcuts (see <editing history>). Perhaps the conflict of aims is reflected likewise in the preservation of manuscripts. Binding, apparently not undertaken since 1889, resumed in 1902 with gilt and blue-morocco slipcases made for MSS V and VII, the Modern Painters I  manuscript, and possibly for the King of the Golden River manuscripts and other juvenile notebooks as well. The elegant slipcases matched the binding of the letters, now returned to Brantwood, and the whole presented a handsome row on the bookshelf. However, one imagines, the enormous scope of the task must have quickly presented itself as Wedderburn settled into sorting through Ruskin's papers in the Brantwood study while Cook established his editorial routine (see Dearden, "Library Edition of the Works of John Ruskin," 54-57). This would explain why the shift to the more workmanlike red buckram occurs as early as 1902 with MS X. (If the editors were working sequentially through Collingwood's manuscript bibliography of the poems, MS X would have been the last to be cased or bound, MS XI having been bound with the other letters in 1889.) The red cloth was likewise used to bind the "Cook and Wedderburn Transcripts," the volumes of typescript and handwritten transcriptions that formed the basis of the editing, and the volumes that must have been compiled very early in the process, those for the early prose and poems, are bound uniformly with the rest.

	What happened between 1889, when the letters were bound, and 1902, when much of the other juvenilia was bound, is not elucidated by Wedderburn's ink and pencil notations on the endpapers of the letter volumes (see <gifts>). According to Wedderbun's ink notation, the letter volumes (presumably all of them) were "deposited at Brantwood, after M<sup>r</sup> Ruskin's death, by arrangement with M<sup>rs</sup> Severn" in "Oct. 1900." (Between 1889 and 1900, one assumes, Wedderburn must have kept the letters at his London home.) The new "arrangement" between Wedderburn and Joan Severn would have been initiated by the decision to prepare the new edition, already announced publicly in June 1900 (Dearden, "Library Edition of the Works of John Ruskin," 53): Did the "arrangement" therefore trump the penciled direction on the flyleaf of each letter volume to turn them over to Joan Severn on Wedderburn's death? (As it turned out, Severn died in 1924, predeceasing Wedderburn, who died in 1931.) Or did the volumes return to Brantwood for consultation only, during the editing of the Library Edition, while officially remaining Wedderburn's property (but with the proviso of becoming Joan Severn's property in the event of Wedderburn's death)? Did the volumes eventually come back to Wedderburn after completion of the Library Edition in 1912? (The latter scenario seems unlikely since the volumes were included among "Manuscripts . . .  Removed from [Ruskin's] Residence, Brantwood" in 1930, according to the title of Sotheby's sale catalogue of that year, in which the volumes are listed. The volumes' remaining at Brantwood might also explain why the penciled directions were not erased or altered after 1924, when Joan Severn died, rendering them inapplicable.) Why was the rearrangement in the volumes, combining the original volumes 1 and 3 (see <MS XI>), carried out in 1924, the year of Joan's death?
	
	Overall, what appears the simplest, but by no means certain, explanation is as follows: Between 1885 and 1889, while writing Praeterita, Ruskin entrusted Wedderburn with the letters to the author's father (possibly "arranging" them himself, or possibly leaving that task to Wedderburn); he gave Joan Severn the tour poems; and he gave a scattering of other early items to friends, leaving the remainder of early manuscripts among his papers at Brantwood. In 1889, Wedderburn had the letters bound in seven blue-morocco volumes, which he kept in London, until returning them to Brantwood in 1900, so their contents could be transcribed and consulted for the Library Edition; similarly, Joan may have kept her manuscripts at Herne Hill???, until transporting them to Coniston around 1900. As part of the trustees' agreement???, Wedderburn specified Joan as inheriting the letters, should he predecease her, probably distrusting the third of the <literary trustees>, Charles Eliot Norton, who was on record as favoring the burning of Ruskin's entire correspondence [Dearden, "Library Edition of Works of John Ruskin," 52--but this isn't a good reference look in Ousby--]). In 1902, amid bibliographic analysis in preparation for the first two volumes of the Library Edition, someone (most likely Wedderburn) decided to contain many of the other early manuscripts in slipcases made to match the blue-morocco bindings for the letters, but then quickly shifted to the more practical red buckram. Finally, that Joan's death in 1924 triggered some modifications in the arrangement and binding at least of the letters.

	Having reduced the evidence to this narrative of probabilities, however, I must emphasize not only that such deductions are provisional but also that, to some extent, ambiguity essentially characterizes the provenance of the early manuscripts at this period: any given decision made about the care and ownership of the early manuscripts may have been overdetermined by the contributions of multiple persons with varying ideas about the construction of Ruskin's childhood, the value and meaning of the juvenilia, the appropriate arrangement of the manuscripts, and so on. One factor in this ambiguity is the role of W. G. Collingwood, whose bibliographic analysis of the juvenilia is a pervasive influence on its provenance, as on its editing, and yet who is himself conspicuously absent from arrangements for the care and ownership of the manuscripts themselves.

	Collingwood must have started his bibliographic analysis of the early manuscripts for <poems91> Poems (1891) in or shortly before 1889, since, in "Preliminary Note on the Original MSS. of the Poems," he describes <MS XI>--the first volume of Ruskin's letters to his father--as unbound ("an envelope containing collected loose papers"), and we know these were bound in 1889. (Collingwood's embarking on this bibliographic investigation at least two years prior to publication is not only logical in itself but also explains his term preliminary for the "Note," despite its being printed toward the end of the first volume of Poems [1891].) That the letters were bound after Collingwood began his manuscript bibliography likely points to preservation being associated as much with his editorial projects as with Ruskin's composing the autobiography. In fact all three activities are likely to have been closely related, Ruskin's construction of his past governing both how Collingwood defined his editorial task respecting the early work and how the early manuscripts themselves were arranged for preservation (see <editing history>).
Another miscellaneous group of early manuscripts was bound sometime between 1900-1903, almost certainly in the same material, to form MS IA (the binding is now destroyed, but descriptions of it survive; see MS IA, <Provenance> and <Description>).
	Another bibliographic activity afoot in 1889 was <T. J. Wise's> printing of the <Bibliography of Ruskin> (1889-93), in which he intruded his forgeries on the labors of James P. Smart, Jr., secretary of the Ruskin Society of London. Wise sought an audience with Ruskin at Brantwood, just as he had scored visits to Browning and Swinburne and regularly called on Edmund Gosse and other literati; he was also on the prowl specifically for letters, since the origins not only of his Ruskin forgeries but also his series of "privately printed" Ruskin letters begin at this time (Dearden, "Ruskin and Wise III," 318-39). One can well imagine Wise attempting a dodge at Brantwood like that of Clement Shorter, who, according to Partington, wheedled Thomas Hardy into allowing him to bind some of the writer's manuscripts and then kept one to defray his trouble; or the cheat that Wise perpetrated on Rev. F. A. Malleson by borrowing the clergyman's holograph correspondence with Ruskin (via Smart) and then publishing the letters "privately" without permission (Thomas J. Wise in the Original Cloth, 109, 114-15; Dearden, "Wise and Ruskin III," 325-28). There is no evidence, however, that Wise's reckless fondness for morocco binding (ibid., 51-52, 238) was allowed to influence the treatment of Brantwood manuscripts.

	Collingwood himself admitted to relying on Wise and Smart's bibliography, as attested by the concluding paragraph of the "Note" in Poems (1891) (a paragraph omitted from the reprinting of the "Note" in the <Library Edition>): "Full account of the published poems has been given by Mr. Thomas J. Wise in his 'Bibliography of the Writings, &c., of John Ruskin,' part <sc>I<sc>,  <i>Sept.</i>  1889 (printed for subscribers only); of which I have gladly availed myself" (<Poems [1891]>, 1:268). If Collingwood looked to Wise and Smart for aid in locating texts of published poems, however, he is unlikely to have allowed them access to unpublished manuscript materials. Wise's earliest personal visit to <Coniston> appears to have occurred in 1893, two years following publication of Poems, and even then Collingwood strove to keep Wise at a distance from Brantwood (<Dearden, "Wise and Ruskin I,"> 47); and a letter of 1892 from Collingwood to Smart shows the former positioning himself against outsiders as the authority in matters of authenticity and attribution (ironically), precisely because he had access to the manuscripts (and to Ruskin himself). Wise can therefore be discounted, I think, even as an agent for binding the manuscripts at Brantwood.

	Collingwood, although in agreement with the editorial principle of comprehensiveness based on thorough manuscript study, distanced himself from the Library Edition, which he regarded as motivated by gain for Wedderburn and the Severns (Dearden, "Library Edition of the Works of John Ruskin," 53). Nonetheless, his previous editorial work on the early manuscripts persisted in governing their treatment, both in their editing in the Library Edition and in their preservation. For example, the segregation of <Red Books> containing mainly prose in the slipcase entitled "Juvenilia" would have derived from the principle, which Cook and Wedderburn never questioned, of treating the prose separately from the poetry.

	Thereafter, the exchange of blue morocco for red buckram may have been dictated by economy, as the editors became aware of the mass of manuscripts to be preserved. Already being used for MS X by 1903.	On Wedderburn's control over mss rather than Cook. Discussion of this stage as completing the formal steps for preservation.

<provenance_ruskinmuseum>	
	In 1901, immediately following Ruskin's death, Joan Severn and W. G. Collingwood (jointly?) deposited a few of the early manuscripts in the Coniston village museum. One can perhaps think of this gift as enshrining the linear descent of possession within the family (now broadened to embrace the extended "family" members of the village, such as Susie Beever). Does this make sense?

<provenance_unauthorized_dispersal>
<unauthorized_sale>
<unauthorized_gift>
Another factor in instigating preservation may have been the bibliographic and collectors' interest in Ruskin outside the Brantwood circle, which developed prior to Ruskin's death. This kind of influence would have been indirect, since the collector's market traded only in published Ruskin. Manuscripts rarely within Brantwood and beyond, is very speculative, but it can be helpful merely to frame the questions accurately.
no sales til Joan died? Puppet Show kept off market? Wedderburn in sole control (38: xxvi) and greatest collector (38:xviii)
	Following the period of preserving manuscripts in connection with editing the Library Edition and founding the Ruskin Museum in Coniston, some early manuscripts took a more shadowy, unauthorized course to their present locations, both before and after the Sotheby’s and Brantwood estate sales. Unauthorized sales can usually be traced, through documentation or presumptively, to Wilks.... Discussed in connection with <collectors>.
	Dearden says Haddon Adams “began laying the foundations of his collection during a visit to Coniston in June, 1928” (Dearden, “Haddon C. Adams Bequest”)

Why Americans?
The American interest in Ruskin doubtless formed part of the more general surge of American collecting, particularly by those interested in English literature (see Carter, Taste and Technique in Book-Collecting 34–36)

See “My First Editor”: little shelf, p. 96